On scientific socialism and the necessity of the eclectic crank

modal_low_ff_jupiters_moon_callisto_lg

The task of scientific socialism in the 21th century should be to understand the laws of motion that govern capitalism in order to ultimately, replace them with  the “laws of socialist planning”. Both parts, the descriptive analysis of “the law of value” and the development of  a political program in accordance to a future “law of socialist planning”  are crucial for the  existence of a lively and healthy research program for scientific socialism.

However,  I would argue that the current research program of scientific socialism is degenerate, and almost dead, even if there is a an existing community of thinkers and writers that develop radical theory.  Since the critical theory turn of the Left after the 1960s, partly due to the absorption of marxism into the humanities,  the “scientific” impetus of  what was once known as “scientific socialism” has been more or less lost.  The  main reasons for the degeneration of the socialist science are: (i) extreme, self-referential formalism, (ii)  a turn towards the critical and descriptive, but without prescription,  and {iii} disdain for the empirical and quantitative.    The original purpose of this blog, was in fact, to combat these three anti-scientific tendencies,  by offering  prescriptive, transparent, and eclectic content that could generate discussion.   I will describe these three issues in the following paragraphs.

Issue (i) is the one that definitely bothers me the most – namely that much of radical theory has  devolved into an a closed, exercise of exegesis – from graduate students finding the meaning of the universe in Marx’s Capital or the Grundrisse, sectarian cadre getting their political education from primary source pamphlets (e.g. Lenin, Marx, Mao),  to  cultural capital waxing in the form of opaque prose that cites  dead frenchmen. This exercise takes the form of a closed self-referential loop that employs a horde of writers, thinkers and sect gurus but does not say much about the world. Contemporary  marxism is completely diseased with this problem,  where a social or economic phenomenon suddenly becomes a platform for the exegesis of Marx’ s Capital (or in its sectarian form, a pamphlet of Lenin or Mao), with academics, bloggers,  and autodidacts finding every excuse to cite a chapter of Capital in every paragraph of an essay/book.  It is a form of primary-source dogmatism  that forms a closed, self-referential system of signals and glyphs that refuses to open up to the outside.   Instead of, for example, engaging academic, secondary sources in sociology, history,  finance,  “bourgeois” economics, and business, in order to synthesize information using Marx as a rough, heuristical guide, all empirical reality is simply filtered through the passages of Capital.  This primary-source dogmatism reveals itself in the numerous reading circles that exist around Capital, rather than that time being spent more fruitfully  reading a secondary source on Capital (in the same way physicists learn Newton’s Laws through a textbook not through the Principia) and instead engaging with current scientific literature  to form a synthesis.  Indeed, if anything, this is entirely the opposite of what Marx did! Marx studied  the cutting edge of his era  in mathematics, “bourgeois” economics, and history,  to form a synthesis; he didn’t  bind  every paragraph he wrote to a reference from Hegel’s Phenomenology!

One probable sociological cause behind  issue (i) is the phenomenon of gate-keeping.  Privileging  the mastery of obtuse and unreadable subject matter and also a specific form of method  creates a pecking order of gurus and academics who use this “mastery” to justify their social or economic position, not unlike the function of medieval guilds.  Yet  this extreme formalism is  often confounded with the traditional form of specialization – where  a doctor an engineer require authentic mastery of technically challenging skills to be adept at their work.   Instead, the formalism acquired in academia or through politico-sectarian education can often act as a straightjacket because it imposes limits into how much can be imported from other disciplines, or how much  can the method change; in their eyes, going beyond method and discipline turns you into a “crank”, “dilettante”  or “eclectic”. However, as Feyerabrand once pointed out, young scientific research programs require precisely of “cranks”, epistemological anarchists that throwing shit against the wall and see what sticks, in order to flourish.

Issue (ii), the lack of positive, political programs as opposed to the overproduction of descriptive criticism, is deeply connected  to issue (i) given that it is related to the  academic-formalist straightjacket for two reasons: (a)  reluctance to engage in interdisciplinary research with other academic sciences inhibits to ability to formulate solutions because of lack of knowledge of the concrete (logistical, managerial, financial, scientific) issues of capitalism, and (b) it is much more academically respectable to engage in descriptive criticism as opposed to formulate radical, concrete solutions. In the case of (a),  the hard physics of capitalism are disregarded  (which require knowledge on finance, economics, computer science and logistics which can only be acquired through inter-disciplinary and  crank-eclectic study) and instead the discourse is saturated with “soft” concepts such as alienation, power, and knowledge, and “value” (some of these concepts related to the formalism of literary and critical studies), so that the discourse is too abstracted to formulate a concrete, political solution to a given problem.  In the case of (b), it’s just simply more congruent with academic formalism to dissect critically the problems of capitalism (and civilization)  without suggesting a political solution that amounts to more than just soft, fuzzy platitudes.  The problem is that, although it is understanding why academia does not have space for radical, political prescriptions, this “critical-descriptivism” is exported outside academia, to the more general radical millieu.  Although a partial, neutered shell of the the old “scientific marxism” still endures in some history or sociology departments, the fact is that these tools are merely used to academically dissect social phenomena without asserting a positive prescription for a better world.

Finally, issue (iii), the general disdain for the quantitative and the empirical, is simply a result of innumeracy and scientific ignorance that comes from the “academic-formalist” straight jacket described in the preceding sections.  Although it is understanding that a person cannot master all subjects, the language and culture of the Left is very alienating to trained scientists and engineers that could collaborate, and the opacity of radical theory due to self-referential formalism gathered from pamphlets or “dead frenchmen” makes it hard for trained scientists to access. Finally,  since the 60s, the Left has developed a counter-enlightment and “social constructivist”  critique of the quantitative positivism of the hard sciences, which often makes the milieu uninviting to  engineering/science types.

It used to be that the workers’ movement was a haven for unorthodox, eclectic-crank types that definitely made the socialist research program alive and useful.  Some names that come to mind are: Bogdanov, Dietzgen, and Preobrazhensky.  Many of these thinkers were often wrong, and often their ideas amounted to little more than crackpot fodder. Yet,  the fact that they were not shy to throw shit against the wall and see what sticks gave rise to politically (and also academically) useful narratives on imperialism, revolution, and socialist planning.  This old, eclectic crank spirit has been replaced by ossified pamphlets and sterile academese.  For the sake of scientific socialism in the 21th century, we must reinvigorate the eclectic-crank once again, as opposed to the measured and methodical “academic” thinker, or the dogmatic guru of the fossilized sects.

 

 

 

23 thoughts on “On scientific socialism and the necessity of the eclectic crank

  1. Ok here is my attempt to start a converstation. I will begin with a point of agreement. Capitalism does not work, for the vast majority of people. Capitalism (or free markets if someone perfers that term better) only appears to work because it has been proped up by socialist means. in essence profits have been privatized while losses have been socialized. Now if there is a libertarian reader such a reader could say, well hell if we had let the banks fail in 2008 the stupid or corrupt people would have been punished and the system would have recovered with new and remarkable leadership.
    My response to that is that if the banks had not been bailed out a spiral of massive economic contraction would have occured that would have caused massive economic disruption leading to somewhere that only Satan knows and no one wanted to go down that path except for fools. But, lets say that you were one of those people that figure that the system would have quickly rebounded after the failure of the banking system. You would still have to face the reality that under an economic-political system in which great wealth is consentrated in the hands of a few people a study of human psychology along with perhaps game theory would make it obvious that such extremely wealthly individuals will always be able to subvert any attempts to maintain a libertarian system which would actually punish the wealthly for making reckless economic decisions.

    Now it is time to move on to a new point. In all likelyhood socialism does not work either. The foundation of socialism is built of a theory of value that Marxists have deluded themselves in to believing is an objective theory. Yet everyone else recognizes value (added) for what it is, a SUBJECTIVE concept. Yet to say that it is subjective is not the same thing as saying its worthless. In addition there is the division of people in to economic classes. The concept of a working class (and a parasite class) is not worthless but it is certianly fuzzy. Then there seems to have been some kind of expecation that a working class under socialist leadership could be a stable united entity. These problems could be at least part of the explination of why almost all of the attempts to achieve a humane socialism that were not really just mixed economies have failed to deliver on thier promises. Has Cuba been the exception?
    Sometime in the later half of the 20th century a group of leftist economists began promoting an idea that they called participitory economics, or Parecon for short The reader can google this term to learn more about it. Or they could go to the website http://www.znet dot something or other which promots Parecon. If I were to summarize Parecon I would call it very decetralized socialism. Could that actually work? My short answer is maybe yes maybe no. Reguardless of whether or not it would work, a society, or planet has to move from where it is now to a point of being able to implement a Parecon society. Should it be gradual or should it be sudden? My answer to that is that Parecon would more likely be successful if the people who actually have to impliment it are psychologically prepared to implement it. Therefore I would choose the gradual approach. Furthermore I am undecided if parecon could actually work.

    Now to attack a cow that is sacred through out much of the world. Democracy is stupid. No freedom of speech or freedom from torture or other freedoms from and too things that exist in many democratic societies are not stupid. But the vast majority of the people on the planet confuse these characteristics of a REPUBLIC as charachteristics of a democracy. A democracy is actually a society of majority rule. But what good is majority rule in the first place? Even more importantly can majority rule in a REPRESENTIVE democracy actually be ascetained?
    My answer to this is that while direct democratic rule might have been a good idea in the 18th and 19th centuries when 85% of the people lived on farms or where employed in small businesses it is total nonsense to think that the masses of people have the training neccessary to make decisions about what is in their best intrests in a 20th or 21st century economy. More importantly in the complex societies that exist today direct democracy is not concievable anyways even in a large firm let alone a small country.
    What is possible is representive democracy. But for such a system to function successfully there needs to be a well educated, intellegent, honest, sane population. Unless these 4 prerequisits are met game theory predicts that special interest groups will come to dominate the election process and the society will devolve in to economic canibalisim. Well actually that is not quite right game theory takes it for granted that those four prerequisits will not be met and that representive democracies will devolve to a point of economic canibalism. Recent history does seem to me to indicate that a party proportional representation system seems to at least retard this process.

    Ok just in case there is a limit to the number of characters that can be used in a comment I am going to continue my comments in a following comment.

    Like

  2. So in my comment above I claimed that capitalism does not work. I added that socialism does not seem to work either but the jury is still out on Parecon. Then I attacked universal voting as a solution to anything at all.
    So in this same vein it should be obvious that rule by theocrats is as bad as rule by the masses.
    Rule by unelected secular elites as in monarchies or military dictatorships is usually just as bad as rule by theocrats. Alexis de Tocqueville was correct when he said that Power corrupts and absolute power corrupts absolutely, or was that Machavelli?, Bacon? Spinoza?
    That means that we have pretty well run out of options. Well except for Parecon AND what I would call Adelphocracy. THE definition of Adelphocracy is MY definition of Adelphocracy. It is, rule by big brothers and sisters, or nannies if you prefer, who have been especially trained and tested and vetted (being tested with out the knowledge that they are being tested although the might suspect it) to rule on behalf of the society in the interests of society guided by the motto, The Greatest Good For the Greatest Number Except When The Greatest Good For The Greatest Number Does Not Make Any Sense. An Adelphocracy would not be established by a universal vote of any sort because the masses lack the legitmacy to make such a decision because they lack the training to make such a decision. It would have to be established by a Board of Regents. A regent is a person who exersices authority in an ad hoc situation because there is NO legitimate authority at the time. No the rule of the Regents is not legimate either. But we will pretend that it is or else. Legitimate rule can only be established in hind sight. After a government has been ruling for centuries and it is clear to a large enough number of people, that this government has been making rules that are in harmony with its motto, so that it can remain in power can it be said that the rule by this government is legitimate.
    Now in the next comment I would outline what I would reccommend as to what immediate changes that the United States of America should make should the leadership of such an Adelphocracy ask me for my advice.

    Like

  3. 1. Implement a progressive income tax. To give you the idea there would be no deductions. The first 50,000 dollars of family earned income would be tax free. Then the rate from 50,001 to 100,00 would be 15%, 100,001 to 150,00 would be 25%, 150,001 to 200,000 would be 40%, 200,001 to 250,000 would be 60%, 250,001 to 300,000 would be 80%, 300,001 to 350,000 would be 90%, and finally it would be illegal for a family to earn more than 350,000 in one year because it would be taxed at 100%.
    2. Unearned income should be taxed even more heavily. The first 12,000 should be tax freebut then the percentages should to up until it reaches 100% at 65,000 dollars.
    The rate for senior citizens should be lower. The first 24,000 should be tax free with the 100% rate reached at 78,000. Social Security Payments should be taxed differently, maybe not at all.
    3. Implement a progressive inheritance tax. 250,000 tax free then 20% over 250,000, 40% over 500,000, 65% over 1 million, 90% over 2 million, and 100% over 3 million.
    4.Increase gasoline taxes at least 50 cents a year for 20 years.
    5.Greatly increase taxes on heavy trucks. One 18 wheeler does as much damage to the roads as 10,000 cars. The trucking companies are getting huge subsidies. Long distance overland movement of goods should be done by rail.
    6. Term limits for Congress and the Supream court.
    7. At lest close all overseas US military bases if not eliminate the military all together.
    8. Outlaw the production of private vehicles over 2500 lbs.
    9.Abolish the Federal Reserve.
    10. Nationalize all Casinos like they do in Swedland. Gambling is stupid but people are going to do it so the profits should go to society not to private individuals.
    11. If there is a military all industries which manufacture weapons must be nationalized.
    12. End biofuel subsidies.
    13. A private citizen should not be able to own a weapon the fires more than 6 rounds with needing to reload.
    14. Abolish limited liabilitiy for corprate leaders.
    15. Make Jury Nullification an official part of the court process. It provides an important balance of power against government abuse. If the government can be prevented from stacking the jury pool.

    Now as a point of clarification if I were a district attorney and it was allowed by the legislature I would prosecute anyone who spanked their children who were over 2 and a half years old. Yet I would not prosecute anyone doctor who performed a first or second trimester abortion and I am not sure what I would do about a third trimester abortion.
    If conservatives did not like my persecution of child spankers then they could hope that people on the jury would refuse to convict these child molesters. If conservatives did not like my lack of action against abortionists they could run a candidate against me in the next election. I think that democracy is often a stupid idea but I make a clear exception for district attorneys. That is one position that the people should elect.
    16.Urban sprawl must be curtailed in the USA. Cities and towns should no longer be able to expand outward. All future building must be either inward, meaning between already constructed buildings, or upwards meaning on top of already constructed buildings.

    Like

    1. There were some typos above. In point number 13 I clearly meant to say that no one should be allowed to own a gun that can fire more than 6 rounds withOUT needing to reload. I do wish to expand on this point somewhat though. There is no point in rushing this platform plank. It is important BUT we must not forget that although weapons with large capacitly magazines kill hundreds of people in the USA each year those fire arms with low capacity magazines kill thousands. America needs to adopt policies that will lead to a movement of internal disarmament. I do not mean a situation in which government instutions have access to weapons and those with no connection to government institutions have none. A disarmed citizenry is a terrible idea.
      What I do mean is policies that will take weapons of war out of the hands of first criminals and then the police. What I do mean is a culture in which conflict is primarlly settled by arbitration. What I do mean is a culture that disdains machoism. and militarism. What I do mean is a country where lots of citizens own double barrel shotguns and or rifles for hunting, which could be used for self defence if neccessary. A country in which fewer people owned double barrel pistols that they used for target shooting, which could be used for self defence if neccessary. A country in which the local police carried five shot revolvers because they no that such a weapon would be more than adequate for making a traffic stop at midnight in a rural area on a cold and snowy night near Brainard or a muggy and stormy night near Philadelphia.
      It would be totally unreasonable to expect our policemen to carry revolvers when much of the population is armed with AR-15s and MAC-10s. But if the masses step back from such over the top craziness the police should not be indulged with such over the top craziness either. The people should not fear police brutality because there are a lot more people than police. The police should not fear threatened by extremists, or gangs, because the police should not only be better armed, they should demonstate their greater wisdom on a daily basis. If they can not demonstate wisdom they should look for a different job.

      To expect this is certianly not to expect the impossible. There are many societies around the world that do not suffer from either a plague of violent crime OR a plague of police brutality.

      Like

  4. OK!! how about this. Say socialism in some circles and people will think of Scandanavia where businesses are for the most part privately run but income taxes are percieved to be progressive compared with everywhere else and the poor are comparatively well off compared with everywhere else. Or, people will think of countries in which most or at least many large businesses are owned (or partially owned) by some level of the national government.
    So considering what the Scandavian countries have achieved and what could be achieved by any country that adopted my first proposal and had an even more progressive income tax, one in which it would be impossible to get so far ahead of everyone else economically speaking that they could be called a robber baron, WOULD IT ACTUALLY BE NECCESSARY TO NATIONALIZE OR COLLECTIVISE BUSINESS IF THE PROFITS FROM BUSINESS WILL BE FOR THE MOST PART RETURNED BACK TO INSTITUTIONS THAT CAN (but not neccessarily will, if they are corrupt) REDIRECT THE EFFORTS OF SOCIETY FOR THE SUSTAINABLE NEEDS OF SOCIETY?

    Like

  5. oh my fucking god ColdDarkStars, thank you for saying this. I got into a twitter debate with a guy about Modern Monetary Theory because I was saying Marx’ conception of the monetary system needs to be updated. Scrolling through his tweets I found this kicker, “Sorry I only read Marx. If its not Marx, I’m not reading it.” That just seems straight up anti intellectual to me.
    When I linked to a modern heterodox economic article on money, another guy chimed in to say “why are you reading this when you could be reading Marx on money”. Jesus Christ everyone!! Read secondary sources! Read new ideas. Marx is fine, but communism and socialism don’t have to be defined by his rotting fucking corpse.

    Like

  6. Yes Mr. Wilson,
    I in my above post I did not mention something because I was asked to keep my comments to two paragraphs. But in my opinion the most important purpose of a progressive income tax policy (and other taxes too) is to prevent people from making so much money that they use their money for really stupid things like buying gold, or a 300 foot yacht.
    If a government wants to support say a tuition free education for its citizens or perhaps free and GOOD public transportation it can do that without a progressive tax policy. In fact I figure that after a few years government income raised through taxation would actually fall if it was not possible to have an after tax income of say 250,000 because there would be no point in earning more than 350,000 per year so workers or businessmen who replace those in say a banking or legal firm who were making more will not even bother to to list their before tax income as more than 350,000 per year. Therefore no one would pay more than roughly 100,000 a year in income taxes. I imagine currently most businessmen use loop holes to avoid paying this much now anyways.
    Tax policy MUST be written to prevent great wealth not to finance the government. Of course the rich do not recognize that they are a threat to humanity anymore than the members of the US military or the workers of the fossil fuel industry do. ( The members of the military in other countries might be a threat to someone. But not to humanity)

    Like

  7. Now about the closed loop of Marxists. Because they are a small closed loop they are not important to the process of creating something new. Creating something knew, if it can be done at all, can be done without them. This is not to say that they are unimportant. Their importance lies in exposing the delusions and unsupportable optomism of those who think that business people can shape the world in a humane and effecient manner WITHOUT OVERSIGHT from government regulators. They have also earned our gratitude for entering the arena of politcal conflict to oppose the powerful special interests that are leading humanity towards extinction.

    Like

  8. So should I understand that the unnmammed blogger running the site does not want to talk about progressive taxation or even about the importance, or lack of importance, of the closed loop of Marxists?
    It is not much of a conversation if we do not talk about anything. I made a few comments that I thought were related to the comments that you made above. But if you want to discuss something new I am open to suggestions, Dark Energy? Dark Matters? The Dark Army maybe?

    Like

  9. Well, shall I carry on a conversation with myself? Perhaps in to the somewhat off message territory of Bitcoin and cryptocurrencies? It seems that you want me to go away. Yet that someone writing a blog about what you are writing about would want me to go away and not join you does not make any sense what so ever. That would be like Max Keiser with out Stacy Herbert. I do not mind playing the role of Stacy.
    As long as I am here I should mention that you should make some effort to make sure that I and Louis Proyect and a few other people who hold Marx in high esteem are not your audiance becaause that would be a closed loop which you indicated that you do not like. Yet I have not been very successful myself in addressing a conservative (american republican party) (pro american) audiance. Websites that cater to such an audiance have either banned me, or they have edited my comments which creates an unlevel unfair playing fleld.
    Not only that it takes a really long time for people to recognize the errors in the modles of the world that they create in their minds. To speed up the process requires that someone under go an intense process of deprogramming.

    Like

  10. Ok this can not be summarized in two paragraphs. It is just to important to me and it is to complex for someone with out the correct back ground to understand with out a complete explination. With in the next several hours four football games will be played that will have profound implications for the careers of hundreds of young men. There are eight teams playing for four positions in the NCAA football playoffs.
    One other team not playing Alabama could get in depending on the outcomes of the other games. Alabama is almost certainly one of the four best teams in the country so it should be included in this play off but it seems that an upset in at least one of the four games needs to occur for Alabama to get in. The match ups are Oklahoma against TCU, Clemson against Miami, Wisconsin against Ohio State, and finally Auburn against Georgia. The Auburn against Georgia Game is the only one in my opinion in which the winner should get in to the playoff. In the other three games, if Olklahoma, Wisconsin and Clemson win they should get in the playoff. But for TCU, Ohio State. and Miami, they should not get in even if they win.
    If any of these three teams win it should serve to eliminate the team that they beat and allow Alabama to enter the play off.

    YOU: Say!!!! what are you doing trashing my blog!!! That comment is not even remotely connected to the post or even politics!

    ME: If we do not know what the political connections or implications of an event are can we say that it has no politcal connections or implications? Is it obvious that if we can not see any important politcal connections or implications between an event and and the politcal processes we should assume that it is politically irrelevent?

    YOU: You are acting like a jurk.

    ME: 1 am acting like the world’s funniest commedian.

    Like

  11. I am basically a computer illiterate. With that out of the way it seems to me that Bitcoin is a technically ingineous idea. I at first thought that it was really stupid. Then yesterday I learned a bit more about how it works. In any case crypto currencies are a threat to a just society. If it is possible to do so they should be banned. In fact I would go so far as to suggest that these currencies did not just appear independently from the American deep state. Bitcoin and its competitors make money luandering even easier than it would otherwise be. That is obviously a crucial aid to continuing criminal enterprises. The criminal enterprises will attempt to use these crypto currencies as an insurance policy against government expropriation. These criminal enterprises are not taking advantage of an emerging technology. This technology was created up on the orders of the leadership of one of these criminal enterprises.
    What proof do I have. You will just have to take my word for it. Personally I think that my word is more valuable than Bitcoin.

    Like

    1. Seeing the way Bitcoin is trading I wonder if the whole world economy will crash when the Bitcoin bubble bursts. There is a so called expert talking right now on CNN who said that althogh lots of people will loose money HE does not think that the world economy will crash. But it has been said by other before me that the super rich manipulate economies to cause crashes so that they can buy things at pennies on the dollar. Considering that this whole industry was thought up by an unkown inventor and then copied by others it does not seem that far fetched to imagine that what is happening with crypto currencies is not an unplanned developement.
      Another thing I have to wonder about is just how much wealth in America and the world is unaccounted for because it was aquired through illegal means, and therefore has alsways been hidden from the tax collectors and the pubiic. This figure could determine how hight Bitcoin and other crypto currencies could go.

      Like

  12. So the PHD candidate has still not found something in my comments about his comments or not at all about his previous comments that he wants to start a conversation about. So I will throw this out as bail.
    A few days ago I was watching this documentary. The narrator said that by the 1300s Germany had been almost totatally deforested as the land had been turned in to crop land. Then in 1343 or was it 1334 the spring began with a drought and all the crops were failing. Then in July the clouds built up over the Tanus Range which is today lies on the southwest side of the German state of Hessen. Then the heavens opened up and a heavy rain began that lasted 3 days. Because the hill sides were bare the water ran quickly down to the Rhein River. The water carried trillions of tons of topsoil and rocks with it. It caused the worse flooding ever recorded on the Rhein. The waters of the River were so deep that they actually topped the city wall of Cologne. (Thats Köln is today´s language) Even more amaizing the narrator said that you put all of the topsoil and rocks that was washed out of the Taunus Range during those 3 days in to railroad boxcars the train would have been long enough to reach the moon!! That is why the Taunus is today a range of hills with a maximum altitude of 880 meters rather than a range of mountains that had a dozen peaks of over 4000 meters in 1300 AD.
    This flood could also explain why the legendary Nibelungen treasure was never found in the Rhein. Yet by most accounts that treasure was sunk in the Rhein south of the Main River so there are many people who still hope to find that treasure, as the flood waters comming down the slopes of the Taunus Range would have flowed in to the Main und Rhein.
    Other people gave up looting for this treasure and become more creative and amassed their own fortunes by skillfully manipulating smoke and mirrors. Although these people might be smart enough not to look for a treasure where a treasure can not be they are certainly not smart enough to understand the consequences of how possession of a treasure makes one behave. They are creating a new kind of errossion.

    Like

  13. Today I was walking through the Taunus Range. While I was walking up one of the hills I was thinking about the stock market. I was remembering how absurd the stock market is. I have of course known about this for generations but I do not actually think about it often.
    Can you imagine what science would be like if scientists used the same rules that economic accountants use? Hhahhahahaha. A guy makes trade online for 2 shares of the Acme stock for 25 dollars instead of the previous selling prices of 24 dollars. At least for a monemet by spending 50 dollars he has created millions if not tens of millions of dollars of “assets”. Now these “assets” could disappear just as fast as they were created. But what if this sale was the last sale of the day and this days stock price will be used for an important report or an important decision?
    When scientists study chlorine or potassium a really really small sample will tell them everything that they need to know about ALL chlorine or potassium. But if they are studing trout a very small sample will not do. Are stocks more like potassium chlorine or more like trout? Then when you add the insider trading and the pump and dump tactics and other manipulations that the super rich can preform with the stocks, to say that the momenatry price of a stock represents its value even for that moment is flat out childish.

    I was thinking about these things and more as I made my way up the hill on the road that runs behind the education center. As I passed under a group of Acacia trees I thought to myself any nation that relies on the stockmarket as an indicator of national well being is a nation with shallow thoughts. At the exact moment that I had finished that sentence a piece of snow-ice about the size of a 2 Euro piece (or a 50 cent piece in the US) fell between my glasses and my eye. The timing was perfect. Not a drop landed on my glasses or in my eye. If that was not a message from a cosmic computer programmer I do not know what is. The message was clealy that I had hit the bull’s eye.

    Oh, JA!…….JA!…. real scientists say that to take such coincidences seriously just discredits the person who wishes to make something out of them. Such events are so subjective that only a fool would make a decision based on considering the possiblity that one had recieved deliberate communication from a non human source. Real scientists say that our generals may as well make decisions reading the entrials of sacrificed sheep.
    That is what the scientists say. That is why the scientists are not the stars of the human story. They are merely the supporting actors. The stars are the artists because they know alien intervention when they see it.
    Furthemore because the scientists do not study military history they do not know that the Roman Generals conquored the whole western Europe and North Africa and much of the Middle East and maintained their empire for centuries making decisions based on the reading the intestines of sheep. Even more importantly American Generals created an empire and continue to maintain it to this day by slaughtering sheep!!

    Like

  14. Y’all are talking a lot. Talk about this- freedom or tyranny. Y’all embrace tyranny way too much. Some call it statism. Statism is the belief that the right amount of violence applied just the right way can make a better world. If you don’t know what that means, what is government? Government is a monoply on violence. That’s all it is. It has no resources and produces nothing.

    Like

  15. Dear Fred,
    Sorry for my late response. Ok I have a question for you. You stated that Governements have no resources? Even in a captialst economy does that seem like the correct answer, that governments have no reasources? Now even IF they had no resources as you just stated they have theortical monopoly of government sanctioned violence. In many countries other NGOs dish out plenty of violence. It is just that these NGOs are not supposed to dish out violence. So if A government has a monopoly of violence I would think that a smart person could draw a very useful conclusion from that. That being that even if a government did not directly produce a damned thing it sure has hell could coordinate the production of EVERYTHING. It could SYNCHRONIZE the economy.
    That the right amount of violence applied in just the right way can make a better world is a no brainer.
    Sadly there are not enough people with brains and intergrity to apply just the right amount of violence to make a better world. NOt onnly that but desception or fraud can sometimestake the place of violence too.
    I would never say that in public though. If anyone says that I said that last senteence I will deny that I actually wrote this post. I will say on a stake of bibles that someone else wrote it and used my name.

    Like

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in:

WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com account. Log Out /  Change )

Google photo

You are commenting using your Google account. Log Out /  Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out /  Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out /  Change )

Connecting to %s